Is Latin America Worth It?

June 10, 1997|By Richard Estrada, The Dallas Morning News.

DALLAS — As Richard Nixon's secretary of state, Henry Kissinger never was convinced of Latin America's importance to U.S. foreign policy. When it came to traveling there, he seemed to prefer putting it off until manana.

Latin Americans continue to feel neglected by Washington. President Clinton did travel to Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean recently, but critics here and abroad repeatedly asked why it took him so long. Is Washington dissing Latin America?

No one can justifiably ignore the many indignities Latin American nations have suffered at the hands of the United States, including armed interventions and territorial conquest. But it's important to note that the issue behind modern neglect of the region has neither been racism, anti-Latin Americanism, nor disrespect.

As students of European diplomatic history, Kissinger and other U.S. foreign policy gurus, such as George F. Kennan, liked to cut to the chase. That meant focusing on the balance of power and spheres of influence as they related to U.S. vital interests in the context of the Soviet threat after World War II.

Kissinger knew that the great diplomatic chess game was being played mainly in Europe, but also in Asia. Yet things began to change. As the Soviet Union began to dissolve and as countries like Mexico began to open up their economies, Kissinger came to see the U.S.-Mexico binational relationship as important--or nearly as important--as any other.

The trouble with those who are demanding that the United States do more for Latin America is that they appear to be oblivious to what drove U.S. foreign policy in the Cold War. The whole point of the Marshall Plan was to help the nations of Western Europe rebuild their economic infrastructure to turn them into a strong bulwark against Soviet expansionism.

Kennan, the author of the containment policy that successfully checkmated Soviet expansionism during the Cold War, knows something about such misunderstandings. When he traveled around the United States in 1947 to speak in support of the Marshall Plan, those with a special interest in Latin America and Asia lobbied him for similar initiatives for those regions.

With an explosion in the size of our Hispanic population since then, it is only natural that there should be even greater pleading for Latin American interests in Washington.

For many observers, Latin America's significance lies in the enhanced trade that has resulted from market and democratic reforms. Others believe greater emphasis must be placed on challenges such as drugs and illegal immigration. In truth, the region represents both an opportunity and a threat. What Latin America deserves is an opportunity to lift itself up.

Inherent in the mistaken argument that the United States should provide assistance to Latin America is the notion that the United States played Santa Claus in 1947. In truth, Washington chose to spend what in 1990 terms was $88 billion out of self-interest, which is to say, the national interest.

The United States has a clear interest in helping promote a prosperous and stable Latin America, mainly through trade. But Latin America is not a bulwark against an expansive evil empire. To give the region less attention than what has been accorded to Europe is not an expression of disrespect. And during a period of heightened controversy over U.S. government expenditures abroad, the time to make that point is now, rather than manana.